Masemola v Road Accident Fund (256/2015) [2016] ZASCA 72 (25 May 2016)

Masemola v Road Accident Fund (256/2015) [2016] ZASCA 72 (25 May 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court had misdirected itself by imposing a higher contingency deduction of 15 per cent for pre-morbid future loss of earnings, despite the parties' agreement and the actuarial recommendation of 10 per cent. The trial court also made an arithmetical error in its award for future loss of earning capacity. The appellate court held that the trial court had insufficient regard for the appellant's potential earning capacity and ambitions, and that the higher deduction was unjustified. Accordingly, the court reduced the pre-morbid contingency deduction to 10 per cent and set aside the erroneous award, ordering that the quantum be calculated by the...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 72
Parties
Appellant: Debbie Mahlaku Masemola; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 May 2016
Case Number
256/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs for two counsel. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with a 10 per cent pre-morbid contingency deduction for future loss of earnings. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, including expert costs.
Judges
Tshiqi, Swain, Dambuza, Baartman, Kathree-Setiloane
Legal Topics
Future Loss of Earnings, Contingency Deduction, Road Accident Fund Act, Quantification of Damages
Delict Future Loss of Earnings Contingency Deduction Road Accident Fund Act Quantification of Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Debbie Mahlaku Masemola

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate contingency percentage rate to be deducted for pre-morbid future loss of earnings in the appellant's claim against the Road Accident Fund?
  2. 2 Did the trial court err in its calculation and award for future loss of earning capacity contrary to the parties' agreement?
  3. 3 Should the court of appeal interfere with the trial court's discretion in determining the contingency deduction?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court had misdirected itself by imposing a higher contingency deduction of 15 per cent for pre-morbid future loss of earnings, despite the parties' agreement and the actuarial recommendation of 10 per cent. The trial court also made an arithmetical error in its award for future loss of earning capacity. The appellate court held that the trial court had insufficient regard for the appellant's potential earning capacity and ambitions, and that the higher deduction was unjustified. Accordingly, the court reduced the pre-morbid contingency deduction to 10 per cent and set aside the erroneous award, ordering that the quantum be calculated by the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs for two counsel. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with a 10 per cent pre-morbid contingency deduction for future loss of earnings. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, including expert costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: (a) The pre-morbid contingency to be deducted for future loss of earnings is 10 per cent; (b) The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs including the costs of the plaintiff’s experts.